A Great Leap for Mankind

Paris--How We Love You

OK, so we admit it.  Yes, we have been chortling over the historic, stupendous, inter-galactic marvel that is the Paris climate change "agreement".  We make this confession, begging forgiveness for our irreverent mirth.

In our defence, our merriment arose out of a paean of praise for the "historic achievement" found in The Guardian.  It turns out that the entire debacle is both exposed and damned by the faint praise of one of its most ardent advocates.

Paris climate deal provides 'best chance we have' of saving the planet

Leaders from the US, China and the EU celebrate agreement reached in Paris, with Barack Obama warning there is hard work ahead.  World leaders have hailed the 11th-hour climate deal reached in Paris on Saturday, claiming it provides the “best chance we have” of saving the planet from catastrophic climate change.

OK, it's a hopeless agreement--but it's the best that could be got.  Better make the most of it. When President Obama--having gone on record as saying that this was our last chance to save--well, everything--admits there is "hard work ahead" he is speaking Klingon for "it's a useless document".

When "world leaders" are saying its the "best chance we have" they are admitting defeat.  Politics and double-speak prevent them from admitting failure in their pursuit of utopia.  It's like the UN (in another sphere of magnificent action) relentlessly pushing empty abstractions like "human rights", whilst ensuring that some of the most abusive and destructive regimes on the planet sit on the UN Human Rights Council--you know, Saudi Arabia, Cuba, Venezuela, and China.  After all, "it's the best chance we have," so we live with the malodorous irony.

If ever there were an "historic" agreement damned by faint praise, this has to set a new standard.

As the dust settles on what politicians insisted was a historic agreement, senior figures from the US, China and the EU welcomed the deal on Sunday – despite misgivings among climate scientists and campaigners who said it did not go far enough. . . .
China’s chief negotiator, Xie Zhenhua, agreed that the Paris plan was not ideal but he added that “this does not prevent us from marching historical steps forward”. India’s prime minister, Narendra Modi, said there were “no winners or losers”. “Climate justice has won and we are all working towards a greener future,” he tweeted.

What happens if countries do not meet their "commitments"?  Nothing.  Nada.  Zippo.  Notice how carefully The Guardian's piece minces around the scatological turd.

Some aspects of the agreement are legally binding, such as the obligation on individual countries to set an emissions reduction target and the regular review of that goal. However, the targets themselves are not legally binding.

What.  It's "legally binding" (whatever that may mean in UN speak) to set an emissions target, but one is not legally bound to keep it.  That's like a regime to reduce road accidents where each motorist was legally obligated to choose a maximum speed they will not exceed, ever.  But, even then, they are not legally obligated to keep their speed below their self-nominated limit.

You can't make this sort of inanity up, unless you were writing scripts for Monty Python.  Whilst the ink on the "historic" agreement has not even commenced drying, come the "buts", the "althoughs" and not a few "neverthelesses".  Death by a thousand qualifications awaits; the incisions begin:

On Sunday the UK’s energy and climate change secretary, Amber Rudd, told the BBC’s Andrew Marr Show that it was an “extraordinary achievement”, but she warned it was “only the start”.  . . .  She said the existing deal would mean a 2.7C increase in global temperatures and so more had to be done. “What this did was set us on a pathway to try and achieve that ... I think this is the right balance. While it is a compromise, it is nevertheless a historic moment.”

Climate scientists and activists cautioned that, while the agreement was unexpectedly ambitious, the measures did not go far enough. “The cuts promised by countries are still insufficient, but the agreement sends a strong message to business, investors and cities that fossil fuels belong to the past,” said Corinne Le Quere, director of the UK’s Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research.  Myles Allen, professor of geosystem science at Oxford, cast doubt on the 1.5C target: “Human-induced warming is already approaching one degree and is predicted to be at 1.2C by 2030, so 1.5C will be a challenge.”

Bill McKibben, founder of environment movement 350.org, said: “The power of the fossil fuel industry is reflected in the text of the agreement, which drags out the transition [to clean energy] so far that endless climate damage will be done.”  Kumi Naidoo, Greenpeace international director, added: “The deal puts the fossil fuel industry on the wrong side of history. But emission targets are not big enough. The nations that cause this problem have promised too little help to those people who are already losing their lives and livelihoods.”

Nick Dearden, director of campaign group Global Justice Now, said: “It’s outrageous that the deal that’s on the table is being spun as a success when it undermines the rights of the world’s most vulnerable communities and has almost nothing binding to ensure a safe and liveable climate for future generations.”

So--in summary--a worthless, useless agreement, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.  All in all, a very good outcome.  The least damage done.  An irrelevant, unworkable "agreement".  The best result for humanity that could be expected from the the biggest scam ever run by "science".  We don't deserve such mercies.  We are thankful.  It could have been much, much worse.